Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Here It Comes: Gun Registration

Did Attorney General Eric Holder recently “spill the beans” on the Obama administration’s desires to implement some kind of national gun registration scheme?

Holder, a perennial anti-gunner who was involved with the Clinton administration’s anti-gun schemes, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18 and a transcript of his remarks that were not part of his prepared statement is revealing.

In the Attorney General's statement I didn't see anything specifically about gun registration. Some pro-gun folks are referring to Holder's remarks that gun information is "to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement," as if this is tantamount to registration. What do you think? Is sharing information the same as registration?

The Examiner article contains a video of Nancy Pelosi speaking earlier this year. What the pro-gun crowd is interested in is when the Speaker of the House said, "We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered."

My own observation is that there's more than paranoia and conspiracy theories here. Gun registration is coming. It's an inevitable part of any comprehensive gun control agenda. It's necessary in order to close the loophole regarding private sales of guns properly.

One interesting thing is when Ms. Pelosi referred to the spate of high profile shootings which happened earlier this year, she said 53 people were killed between March 10th and April 4th. Not one of the pro-gun apologists who were so thoroughly analyzing this video in light of Holder's comments bothered to mention that along with those 53 who lost their lives during that bloody month in highly publicized shootings, another 2,000 or so died from gun violence. The daily toll is upwards of 100, that's every day, day in and day out.

What's your opinion? Isn't it about time something was done about the free flow of guns in America? Do you agree that total registration of all guns, linking them to their proper owners would help diminish the flow?

12 comments:

"Do you agree that total registration of all guns, linking them to their proper owners would help diminish the flow?"

If Chicago is any indicator, gun registration just pushes the "flow" of guns underground, creating even more crime.

Considering there are already 250 million guns in private hands, registration won't make a dent in the "flow". Especially knowing that criminals are Constitutionally exempt from registering guns under the 5th Amendment.

Taking into account the rate of gun sales, if starting tomorrow, you were to register every gun sold, you wouldn't live long enough to see 5% of the total guns in this country registered.

Even if you were to register guns retroactively, you'd be lucky to get 10%. The vast majority of guns in this country are in the hands of those who will fight registration the hardest (collectors, enthusiasts, 3%ers, etc).

Nationwide gun registration in the US is a pipe dream. It would possibly be:

1. Expensive - Canada's long gun registry cost 3 million per year and it only has a 50% compliance rate. And the US has far more guns than Canada. It would be hard to justify in this country's economic situation.

2. Dangerous - Do you really want weekly Ruby Ridges and annual Wacos? I'd imagine the body count of dead registration enforcers and resisters would negate any of the lives "saved" by registration.

3. Strategically Stupid - Aside from a handful of loons (Feinstein and Co.), how many politicians do you think are willing to sacrifice their careers to piss off a lot of well armed people? It's never been a good strategy to poke a hornet's nest.

4. Logistic Impossible - Even if none of the above holds true, it's still pretty hard to register over 250 million guns. Where would you start? How would you do it? Who's going to do it? How are you going to enforce it? It's not like the NFA where you can keep the entire registry on a desktop computer.

With that said, registration will not happen on a federal level. I do expect it to be pushed for very vehemently at the state and city levels though. And in the larger cities of the country where the nanny-statists are already well entrenched, it will happen.

"is 'to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement,' as if this is tantamount to registration. What do you think? Is sharing information the same as registration?"

No, sharing information is not the same as registration. It is the "retained" part of the statement that is the same as registration.

Registration only affects the law abiding. You cannot charge a criminal with failure to register his illegally owned gun. You can only charge a non criminal thus making a criminal out of an otherwise law abiding citizen.

"Why would you resist something that would cut into the flow of guns to criminals?"

A better question is what incentive do I have to not resist? How is gun registration going to personally benefit me?

Will it make my guns cheaper? No. Registration costs money and I doubt the government is going to foot the bill.

Will it protect me from future infringements of my Second Amendment rights? No. The gun controllers will continue to pursue bans on "assault weapons", bans of carrying weapons, bans on imported guns, etc.

Will it repeal current infringements on my Second Amendment rights such as the NFA? Probably not.

As I said in your recent post about Glenn Beck, "Is it wise to cooperate with those who want to destroy you through increased taxation and regulation?" The obvious answer is "No".

And that is why I resist. I just don't see any potential good in it for me. But looking at places like England, Canada, and Australia, I see lots of potential bad.

Laci, good examples there with Ruby Ridge and Waco. In both cases the government created the stand-offs, in both the government killed women and children and in both it was later determined that there was no crime committed.

Therefore in both of your examples, the people that "created the havoc with guns" was the government. So you are saying we need to disarm the government then?